California goes to the polls today on Kelo–or does it? (UPDATE: dang.)
Californians get to vote today, and two of the propositions on the ballot are clamoring petulantly for attention. Prop 98 and Prop 99 both claim to put an end to the eminent-domain outrageousness of Kelo v. New London. And each bill claims that the other is a secret plot to undermine the true anti-Kelo bill. I think one of them is right.
Funny thing is, the literature we’ve been receiving is contradictory as well. I got a flyer in the mail from some “grassroots”/astroturf group with “GOP” in the name, pushing some conservative candidates and quoting Reagan and urging me to vote no on 98 and yes on 99. Meanwhile the local Republican group sent out an e-mail recommending yes on 98 and no on 99. And a while back at Patterico’s site, Justin Levine said to heck with both of ‘em, citing this LA Daily News article.
From what I can tell, my local GOP party got this one right, and unless someone in the comments totally convinces me otherwise I’ll be voting yes on 98, no on 99. Here’s why:
–> That LA Daily News piece cites the invidious secret agenda of the Prop98 people is that not only does it curtail eminent domain powers, it also eliminates rent control. Which, for me, being something of a free-market kinda guy, is less like an invidious secret agenda and more like a cherry on top.
–> The LADN story also says Prop 99 carries a clause that tries to beat down 98–but 98 doesn’t have a similar clause to beat down 99:
Worse yet, Proposition 99 contains a political poison pill – a provision that would block Proposition 98, even if voters overwhelmingly approve it, should Proposition 99 get as little as a single vote more.
And that’s Proposition 99’s real purpose – killing Proposition 98 by any means possible.
Yeah, between the deceptive astroturf mailing and the poison pill measure, I’m starting to see which of these measures is the fake one.
–> The League of Women Voters and the AARP oppose Prop 98. That makes me more inclined to be for it.
If you’re interested in more, here’s the YesProp98 site and here’s the pro-99 site–which is actually called noprop98.
P.S. From the former site, there is a move to use eminent domain to knock “amigo stores” out of Baldwin Park in LA:
It was as if the developers were talking about tacos, and the Latino politicians were talking about apple pie.
Baldwin Park Mayor Manuel Lozano and other city officials listened as the developers said they had studied the demographics of the city and could bring in a retailer known for offering credit to undocumented immigrants and a shopping center with a “Latino feel.”
To Lozano, it was another case of developers typecasting his suburb, which is about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. He didn’t want to see more of what he calls “amigo stores.”…
But this year, Baldwin Park — a city of 70,000 in the San Gabriel Valley — enacted a moratorium on new payday loan and check cashing stores. The city is now partners with Bisno Development Co. on an “urban village” of mixed-income housing, theaters and mainstream restaurants such as Claim Jumper, Applebee’s and Chili’s.
To make it happen, the city is considering a plan that could require the use of eminent domain power to clear a 125-acre area.
Interesting…Michelle might disagree with me here, but I don’t think eminent domain is the right way to address the illegal immigration issue. I do think businesses that knowingly offer credit to illegals–the article mentions La Curacao as doing so–should face sanctions as a law-enforcement action. Of course they also shouldn’t get any kind of support or approval from the City Council. But as for law-abiding businesses, eminent domain is out of bounds.
I can certainly see city planners wanting to bring in more upscale and mainstream stores to their communities. But if someone legally owns a store, then they own the store and “catering to Latinos” isn’t grounds to yank their private property out from under them, even if the city really really really wants to put in an Applebee’s there. Local (and all) governments are there to defend private property rights and not to subvert them–even when I happen to agree with some of the government’s goals.
UPDATE: Looks like 59 is passing and 58’s failing, which is better than nothing. But not too much better than nothing.
________________________
{Post by See-Dubya. Cartoon from here.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration, Supreme Court
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Legal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Sister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Riehl World View
» Google Refuses To Remove Michelle Obama Image
I was so confused by these two measures I decided to vote yes on both
see-dubya-I was going to offer the point for voting for 98 – its “enemies”.
AARP – LofWV – and etc… but-you pretty much covered them.
I trust most of the groups who support 98. (I no longer trust the CA R.P.) but that’s another story.
The Founders never intended eminent domain to steal the property of citizens to bring “better” businesses for a greater tax base.
To my CA friends-vote 98!
From what I read above, I think that’s what the pro-99 (anti-98) forces are hoping for. If enough confused people do that, their preprogrammed voters might be able to put them over the top.
I’ll also be voting up on 98 and down on 99.
Might bite me in the butt because I’m a renter, but it’s still the right thing to do… besides, I intend to own property someday.
Also, 98 was endorsed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association, which is an excelent bellweather in nutso-California.
Here is why I will be voting NO on 98 and YES on 99.
I agree that the Kelo decision was a travesty and that we must stop eminent domain for private uses.
I also philosophically disagree with rent control.
But I think the language in Proposition 98 is too broad and I agree with the interpretation that Prop 98 would prohibit rent control. I think the problem lies in vague terms like “economic benefit” which are subject to interpretation.
Given that we have had rent control in many cities for so long and that rent control has so distorted the market forces that determine the housing supply, if rent control is going to be ended I think it should be unraveled and phased out in a very careful way. I am concerned that ending rent control as an afterthought as part of a proposition on eminent domain will lead to unintended consequences that just haven’t been thought through clearly yet.
I also don’t think the best solutions to the rent control issue in Los Angeles are the same as the best solutions to the rent control issue in San Francisco.
So as a true conservative, I don’t want the voters in Los Angeles to decide what the housing policy should be in San Francisco.
I want the rent control issue to be decided at the local level closest to the people who will be impacted by the decision.
So while I agree that prop 99 is a watered down version of prop 98 on the eminent domain issue, I would rather start with prop 99 now and continue to work on strengthening the eminent domain protections than to vote for a proposition that is too broad now that will result in years of law suits and lots of unintended consequences.
That is my opinion. I look forward to reading yours.
California resident here.
I have researched it, and no doubt at all, the conservative Yes is on Prop 98, the conservative No on Prop 99.
Get it done, California conservatives.
wren (Comment #5) –
Please check blightfraud.com/ and look at the “Summary of Differences” between the two ballot propositions. Regarding rent control in particular, look at the 7th item down on the Prop 98 side.
It says there that under Prop 98: “Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property. However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences.”
Unless I’m misreading it, that means current rent-control tenants have a grandfather clause allowing them to maintain their situations, and only future rent-control government mandates are prohibited. Honestly, I think this is a needed measure that does protect current tenants, and I would argue that it’s long past time to wean certain California cities (which shall remain nameless) off of their socialist rent provisions.
Yes on Prop 98, No on 99 is the vote to make if you truly “philosophically disagree with rent control.”
But if rent control ends in San Francisco, all those weirdos will move out here to my town. Um I live in Sacramento (well close to it).
Is that a good enough reason?
Any one?
Bueler?
Ah what the hell. I hear if rent control is phased out more inner city housing projects will be built.
Om Ok yes on 98. And no on 99
I chose the less of two evils. I don’t live in California!
Well,I ate lunch at a cheap chili joint in San Diego once and got imminent ptomaine…does that count?
I’m going to vote yes on 98 and no on 99. I agree that this is an issue that should be solved by our “legislators,” but long-term exposure to the incompetence and corruption in Sacramento has convinced me that they are not up to the task (or most others, apparently). California has become a balkanized banana republic with a dim future. God help us.
As a staunch “Ship out the Wetbacks like Yesterday!” advocate, I have to regretfully concur here. Political philosophy purity aside, if these cities want to incur a sudden massive need (and $$$) in “free” public housing (else resemble the streets of Bombay), then toss out rent control without any long-planning to wean off it and see what will happen sure as the sun rises. I’ve seen it happen in Queens and Brooklyn, don’t say you weren’t warned.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
A Thompson Conservative who HAS to vote McCain ’cause the Dems ain’t getting in to stick my wallet with irreversible mega-social programs because I wasn’t blocking their tank!
I’ll be voting no on both 98 and 99.
Proposition 98 combines eminent domain with rent control. Those are two separate issues; there should be two separatel initiatives, so that the voters can decide each on its own merits.
I’ll gladly vote to curb eminent domain abuse — when it’s a single issue initiative.
Why am I voting no on 99? Because it’s too watered down, and was put on the ballot in a cynical attempt to invalidate 98.
Disagreeing with rent control shows a serious lack of understanding in how cities work.
Cities provide areas with lots of jobs, lots of renting opportunities, and lots of public transportation. People who don’t have a lot of money need the protection of rent control to stay in an area where they can make a decent living.
I understand that rent control can also contribute to housing shortages and that it’s not as economically “pure” as many would like. I’m not arguing for rent control everywhere. But CA is an awfully big place. Eliminating rent control completely would be an unmitigated disaster. It will lead to higher density in more dangerous (read: low rent) areas of the city. It will cease to protect entry-level and service sector workers…people that cities need to thrive.
I think Kelo was BS, by the way. I just don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That is how I voted because Prop 99 is the Politicians bill that does nothing to stop the land grab they have been doing. It only addresses owner occupied, which have to be occupied by the owner for more then a year, homes, which is less then 1% of the property they have been grabbing. It does nothing to stop the land grab going one.
The whole problem with rent control is it forces what a private property owner can change. Rent control is one of the major driving forces that cause run down buildings because if you have no profit, you cant put money into the place to fix it up.
If the government wants rent control they can build their own housing projects and manage them. Oh wait they have done this in many cities and these housing areas are usually called the Projects, which are ridden with crime and the buildings are deteriorating after 20 years because they can’t afford to repair them.
Rent control is like any other price control…it doesn’t alleviate anything and all it does is cause an eventual otherwise inordinate increase or spike in rents to reach true market levels when the controls are finally removed…the longer the control is on,the more distorted the actual rental market becomes
Why do they keep voting on propositions when the jackass judges override the peoples will every time? Total waste of money they don’t have.
I think we all understand “how cities work”. Graft. Corruption. Pandering. Democrats.
I found this a fascinating, yet disgusting view into your Marxist beliefs:
Cities provide. Ah, yes, here we go. . .central planning, big, omnipotent government. . .
People (who don’t have a lot of money)need protection. Nanny state. Class Warfare.
Decent Living. “Living wage?” Do I smell a new human right being offered??
Rusty, thanks for your acknowledgement of some tenets of free-market capitalism. If having people with money come in and revitalize run-down areas is an “unmitigated disaster”, then we should get the hell out of the way. This country is not great because we have cheap labor from illegal immigrants “that cities need to thrive”. On the contrary, these vermin are creating pockets of third-world existence in this great country of ours, and they need to follow our laws and leave. Wages and markets will adjust. That’s the invisible hand that you secretly know is at work but can’t bring yourself to accept.
Finally, I’m guessing you have a problem with Kelo on some minor, highly-nuanced technical points, not it’s freedom-sucking power grab for local governments.
Shhh you can’t use logic with DP
Good work, See-Dubya.
As a California Conservative, I was very interested in these two measures but found all the double-speak and machinations used a barrier to understanding which measure would curb the goverement violence used against its citizens in the name of “Eminent Domain”(for all goverment force IS violence).
Thanks for adding some clarity to this issue. I will be voting Yes on 98, No on 99.
I’m glad there is a discussion on this here. . .I wouldn’t have known how to cast my vote on these two if I hadn’t read about it here.
Nope. Just because I’m liberal doesn’t mean I don’t have a libertarian streak. Forcing someone to give up their property (inevitably at a discount) is fundamentally wrong.
As for rent control, I think you’re overestimating how hard the price ceiling is. My rent control at my own apartment prevented rent from more than doubling. If the building suddenly went from $1400 a month to $3000, you’d have a lot of people priced out with nowhere to go. They’d have to move to high crime/high density areas that may not be as accessible to public transportation. That harms the city and harms the dislocated people.
So rather than force the market to adjust to its poor decisions to raise the rent and leave those buildings empty or nearly empty until prices stabilize from their over-inflated prices you would let Big Brother gov’t come in Communist style and declare what the price will be and stifle the free market prices like what Armigerous was describing above.
Got it.
On June 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am, pressto said:
AGREED! Plus, I don’t live in Miami – my favorite city on earth – because I know on a teacher’s salary I can’t afford to provide my family with a decent place to live and still keep food on the table. Same for rent control – if one’s income is too low to afford to pay the fair market value of a rental property, then it is time to move on.
Somewhat off topic –
the inital advertising confused me as well – decided before reading the props that I’d go with the prop the Howard Jarvis group supported.
But…the support by the AARP and Women’s League of Voters threw me – I don’t understand either one. Well, maybe the rent control elimination is a factor for seniors, but the WLV?
I’ve always thought the WLofV was an independent group – not significantly party affiliated – you give me the impression that I’m mistaken…could someone elaborate??
I think both propositions are deceptive. 99 has the better chance of passing (with more votes than 98).
Here’s one for the purists: If lower-income renters are supposed to just “move on”, who does their jobs? The answer is simply nobody. Santa Barbara shows this more clearly than probably anyplace else. The city has a huge tourist industry, and that means a large number of low-paying service jobs. Where are these workers supposed to live? Can you answer that without any government regulation or subsidies in rentals?
A corruption of the initiative process indeed. Most here in CA can’t comprehend these intitiatives, even if they would like to vote for property rights.
I live in a large urban city where the average price of a house/condo has doubled in the 6 years I have lived in this city. But in those same 6 years low income rentals are still roughly the same prices they were back then since they are some of the lowest priced housing of any kind that is not government subsidized. I still live in one of these apartments and can afford it just fine. Is there crime and a high density of people? Of course, show me a high density place that doesn’t have crime problems. AZ is just not as stupid as D.C. and actually have sane gun laws. So when someone broke into my apartment while I was home over 5 years ago he was quite surprised to have a .45 pointed at his face. He dropped the dufflebag (and tool he used to break in with) from his hands and ran out the door he came in. When the cops showed up after I called them to collect the evidence and file a report I wasn’t chastized once for pointing a loaded weapon at a criminal in fact I was praised for stopping a crime and potentially saving my own life. Some parts of the country are still sane, scary I know for these liberals out there.
Free market is the better solution to housing, just like it is for healthcare. You really want the government, the same one that gave us the loons we have on the hill in both parties, running all your housing and healthcare? Heh.
If two misleading and confusing initiatives like these are on the ballot, my instinct is to vote no on both. The California initiative process is right out of “Alice In Wonderland”.
Edouard Re: comment # 7
I realize that “It says there that under Prop 98: “Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property. However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences.”
However, again I think the problem is with the language and the potential unintended consequences.
The over 1 million Californians who live in rent controlled apartments will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences.
How big an incentive would the abrupt end of rent control create for landlords to encourage, by whatever means necessary, their current tenants to leave?
I just think we should solve one problem at a time rather than creating a whole new slew of problems as a result of making a huge change to our current housing policies before doing hard work of understanding the consequences of the decision.
I am in favor of a phase out of rent control, but I think it should be done very, very carefully, not as an afterthought as part of another proposition.
Why are we even being distracted by the rent control issue, when the whole purpose of prop 98 was supposed to be to solve the eminent domain issue?
I think prop. 98 is poorly written because it is too broad.
I will be voting NO on 98 and YES on 99.
We tried to have eminent domain reform in the legislature a couple years ago and special interests (municipalities, developers, major corporations) created an alternative Assembly bill with the same purpose in mind – split the vote and leave the current situation essentially unchanged.
The initiative process is a flawed tool. but given the cravenness of the politicians in Sacto, it can be the only way to let the voice of the people to be heard. In the last 6-8 years we have seen the use of counter-initiatives to confuse the voting public. It is reprehensible.
As for rent control, it is yet another example of uncompensated “takings” by the government. The private land owner is restricted by government fiat in what they can do with their lawfully owned property. I fail to find in the Constitution any language that permits this. This is especially egregious when the restriction is placed on an economic activity that was already in place – not a situation of new use or use not permitted by existing zoning regulations.
Agreed on all counts, see-dubya. I voted yes on 98, no on 99. Even though my brother lives in a rent controlled apartment, I hate rent control as a matter of principle. It doesn’t even work out too well in the end for the renter since the landlord always ends up selling the building, letting it go to pot, or in the ghetto, just burns it down because he can’t make any money off the place.
Using eminent domain is fine for expanding freeways or getting rid of crack houses. It’s not fine for government to control what it would like to see in the community at the expense of legal, legit business owners and hardworking, tax-paying homeowners. Nobody should have to lose his business or his home because some developer greased palms at City Hall.
Fellow Californians:
Vote YES on 98.
Let’s save ourselves from bigger government.
Agreed!
Yes on 98
No on 99
If you want to know why kelo reform MUST happen, you only need to look at Houston.
http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2007/04/shades-of-kelo-haunt-home-for-mentally.html
And our mayor, Bill (bleed the taxpayer)White, also has used the “one vote more” trick to invalidate city propositions he didn’t like too. a couple years ago a TaBOR proposition was put up by a local conservative group. The mayor put up a competing one with the same “one vote more” invalidation language that was a much watered down version with a lot of loopholes, managed to have it put ahead of the conservative one on the ballot so that it benefited from ballot order bias. The resulting lawsuit is still working it’s way through the courts.
Prop 99 does not do much of anything. Since changing from a residence to a business requires a zoning change, cities already are constrained from grabbing peoples houses in a major way. Prop 99 has no effect on the current practice of stealing a business from Revelli to give it to Firestone.
Prop 98 does stop commercial as well as residential land grabs, with the appropriate exception of ‘city’ use. IE: schools and water projects, etc.
Prop 98 also has provisions to phase out rent control. Having lived in rent controlled places what I can say is that this measure is sorely needed. Regardless of the comments here regarding ‘city blight’, the real blight comes when no-one will repair, rebuild or build in any meaningfull way. Rent controls do just this, they force property owners to NOT repair or replace their buildings.
As a side note, just watch the big fight every year for the handfull of permits in SF that people fight for to allow them to convert their buildings to condo’s. That is a major payday there for a property owner because of rent controls. Do not think for one minute that this is not a rigged process, with city workers bringing home some bacon for themselves!
I voted yes and no. Or was it no and yes? Can’t recall. I mailed it in.
I voted Yes 98/No 99. Probably doesn’t matter given that the CA supreme court has a policy of reversing the will of the people wherever possible.
To wren, comment #32
I have cast the Yes 98, No 99 votes.
I appreciate your points, but even if I cast a No vote for 98, I’d still vote No on 99 because 99 is worthless.
Business and farm property need to be shielded from unethical government takings. 98 does so, 99 does not. That reason alone is really my main reason for the vote.
Regarding rent control, I simply do not have the concerns you do, as I am certain that California’s liberal legislature will compensate anyway (unfortunately) in some way, probably with some kind of subsidy scheme.
Eventually, though, citizens have to make a stand against government controls over what property owners can and cannot charge for rent, or over what they can and cannot do with their properties.
Regarding an earlier comment, I do understand how cities work. The poor will find affordable housing; government always finds work-arounds to subsidize the poor, but a Yes vote on 98 will be a bracing and clarifying shot across the bow by property owners against land-covetous and hyper-controlling governments, state and local.
About that huge tourist industry in Santa Barbara, perhaps those low cost service workers are being undervalued. An end to rent control might force employers to finally pay people what they are worth.
I got so tired of the ads for both of them that I decided to heck with it and didn’t vote for either one.
Holy propositions batman! Thanks See-Dubya for reminding me to vote! I forgot it was today.
Off to the voting booth for me. And I think you’ve hit right on btw. I had already decided yes to 98 and no to 99.
There, I fixed it for you, Rusty. Telling an owner what they can and cannot charge for rent – money due them in exchange the for occupant’s right to exclusive USE OF THE PROPERTY – is wrong. Why you think it’s OK to tell someone what they are allowed to charge, whether that’s for sale or monthly use of the property, is too dumb for me to even begin to understand.
P.S. You’re a socialist. Get over it.
Results:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm
98 Loses
99 Wins
Yet another example of why we should require a passing score on an IQ test to be allowed to vote. Score another win for the scam artists.
It’s no surprise that 99 would win. Waking up this morning I was just going to vote “no” on both since I didn’t fully understand what was going on, but I ended up voting “yes” on 98 and “no” on 99 thanks to this posting.
Given the fact that California voters rejected Arnold’s government reforms less than a couple years after he took office, and last election I witnessed Los Angelino’s vote for a 9% phone tax, I pretty much figured that 99 would beat out 98… mainly because California voters are so overwhemingly stupid and ill-informed they just vote for whoever shows the most ads on TV and sounds better.
I suppose Prop 99 will have to do until people see the government taking land for eminent domain and wonder, “Hey, didn’t we pass Prop 99?”, and then there will be another eminent domain proposition that passes.
I mean, 99 was endorsed by Arnold and a ton of other legislatures… so didn’t anyone else think it was suspicious that the government would support a bill restricting “eminent domain” powers that they want? We’re so gullible, and this happens not just in California but everywhere else but I just think there are too many stupid uninformed citizens!
I bet if I campaigned to go to Congress be fully transparent, and vote down every single law and against every advacement of government power people would have a problem with that type of platform… maddening!
Rusty! Talk about dissonance!
You mean like when you force a land owner (that’s a someone) to give up their property (rental real estate) at a below market rate (ie. a discount)? How do you reconcile your objection to Kelo while supporting rent control? They’re the exact same thing: a taking of someone’s property at an unfair price by government fiat.